Accomplishing the dissertation is usually the final and most challenging hurdle in the candidate’s degree program. It concludes the doctoral odyssey. Even for those failures leading to ABD (all but dissertation) status, there can be priceless learning. The exploration in producing the doctoral dissertation, succeeded or not, can spin a lifetime of furtherance.

When it was time for me to produce the dissertation, all I could wonder was what it would mean to me or to anyone for that matter. I was confident that I would accomplish it. I set my mind to it from the start of my program. I knew I wouldn’t give up and that I would do whatever it took to get it done. The most I had to accomplish was to produce a study that would contribute to the “generalizable knowledge” in my respective field. How hard could that be?

I was encouraged at a seminar that I was smart enough to take at the onset of my program that discussed producing the dissertation. Recalling the wisdom bestowed upon me and my eager fellow participants, there appeared to be a lot of freedom of choice in topic. Every question we threw at our lecturer was met with the response, “Why not?” It was as though the barn door was opened wide for anything our raw minds could imagine coming to life in a formalized writing. Of course the topic had to win the respect of a group of scholarly referees who would ultimately decide our success. These smart ones were going to rip us apart, it was warned. They would ask such questions as, “What impact do you feel your study will have on the world at large.” That is just the sort of thing that plagued me.

Now that it was time to tackle the dissertation, I just wanted to be done with it. I didn’t want to wrack my brain doing much more thinking—I had just come off a marathon of doctoral courses and seminars. But think one must, about what this piece of illustrious and scholarly writing will actually do for anyone besides getting me, the doctoral candidate, through the program.

Without giving a lot of thought to topic selection, I began by working on a study about producing dissertations. Why not? It seemed like a perfectly good and worthy topic. I knew from the positive responses we got at the early seminar that it would fly, and probably better than any other topic for that matter. And just like the gentlemen who responded with “why not” a year earlier, the topic was accepted by my mentor. However, I later abandoned the idea.

After reading nearly 100 dissertations and a gazillion books on research and dissertation writing, I was finally ready to take the plunge in earnest. At least now I was more confident that I could produce a writing that I knew I could defend. I felt that I likely knew as much or more about dissertation writing then “they” did by now. I was sure no one had gone to such lengths to understand the whole matter. Believe it or not, regretfully, this turned out to be an accurate assumption. I was well armed with the knowledge of dissertation writing, but was my mentor informed enough to understand my projections? It did not appear that he was onboard, so I tried out another “scholarly head.”

I began in an orderly fashion, gathering data to formulate a model of the American woman entrepreneur. Gathering data wasn’t the half of it. There was the methodological component to be mastered. I had only determined “what” I would study. I also had to devise “how” I was going to study it. Luckily, I had my mountains of notes on the study of dissertation writing for referencing. That preliminary work wound up playing a major role in my progress. Still, selecting just the right methodology was a roadblock for some time.

On one memorable morning, the light had shown through a crack in the blinds, past my coffee, over the toast, and onto a set of words on a single page among the heap I constructed during the night. The frail stream found its way to a passage not impaired by a dying ink cartridge. “Hermeneutic Inquiry,” I heard myself utter. It sounded regal. It said I could be a bit innovative because this methodology was an “interpretive approach” to data collection and analysis. It cited the bible as the primary example of interpretive writing, one that we humans have analyzed for eons.

There is even a derivative of this already satisfying culture of inquiry, something called “hermeneutic cycle approach.” Oh, happy day! It meant the worthy researcher, me, could look at the data astutely captured, from a lot of different angles. It meant that I could explore what evolved from it, looking again and again at the data, and perhaps developing a unique perspective each time through the recycling of the data in a process called, “data recycling.” I could develop themes through a process called, "thematic griding" and view them from a variety of levels and creative ways in the recycling process.

In designing the methodology, I also discovered “triangulation” in research, something that I was already sold on, having used the approach in a team resolution involvement some years earlier. I even established my own approach to it after getting a handle on its wonderfully diverse meaning. I call it “triangulation thinking.” It means looking at a thing from three interrelated points and/or to identify two points to plot a third in all forms of thinking. I discussed triangulation at length in my dissertation. Everything in this scholarly piece of writing had to be proven and cited from the brains that conceived it (primary sources) and those that were fortunate enough to have such work published in a scholarly journal, a refereed writing from which others could interpret and apply (secondary sources). The approach in my dissertation constituted a mix of primary and secondary sources (tertiary sources).

I had all of my data collected, and I was finally ready to analyze my findings and formulate it into a cohesive writing, but it was not to be accomplished so easily. First, I had to overcome the infamous plights and challenges of the doctoral student. I had to earn this doctoral right to passage through the tribulations associated with doctoral work. My own plight was to become the loss of data, some 50 pages of it. Well, that was almost the last day of my interest in ever earning the ridiculous doctoral title. After screaming, tossing some papers to the ground, stamping a foot and then the other, verbally constraining language, and flipping a few precise hand gestures to the sky, I was over it.

After all of that work now lost, having to begin again, after digging to the deepest part of my soul, I did just that. I began again. What lifted me, as I recall, was a piece of news about a student whose car was vandalized, and for reasons not satisfactorily explained, his study was stolen. It was a couple of hundred pages of finished work, not saved to any disk mind you. His loss made my lost 50 pages of raw data, having barely a connective thought yet established, look incidental. I also read in that piece that the fellow did his work again, and it was better the second time he thought. So that would become my legacy of suffrage as well. I would do it all again, and this time it would be even better.

Armed with a newfound excitement, it carried me through yet another round of data gathering. It was indeed turning out to be better than the first extrapolation, and because you cannot possibly do an exhaustive search for data, you have to know when enough is enough. And so I rested. But after compiling my findings from the new round of data, I felt that something was missing. I got my mentor on the phone. I struggled through another series of distractions, and I secured his approval for a modification to my proposal, I hoped.

Now I was going to bring in a group of women to test my findings. I called this an “auditing” group. One thing I heard clearly, among his audible words, was my mentor’s wish that I would have one male individual test my data. Interesting, but not an idea I immediately adopted. Initially, I thought I might consider it was best left among the words lost in our poor communication. After all, my study was about women and how they are contributory as entrepreneurs.

I developed a survey and sent it off to a small number of women from various regions who I found through a networking process. They all responded. The free-speak thoughts they presented were most enlightening. Something I noted for further study in my dissertation is that it is important to examine how women in small businesses need to provide insurance benefits to their employees or else lose them to bigger companies, which was to become a part of my recommendations for further study.

After giving it a bit more thought, I sent my survey to one male participant. In the end his thoughts were indeed beneficial. He was surprised at the plights of women that I captured and their degree of impact on the American economy. He also responded that he had a new-found respect for them and that he would take more seriously the women he had encountered who just like him was involved in the construction field. My all-male dissertation committee was most interested in his perspective.

I also learned about how women are leaving corporate to begin their own business due to not being taken seriously (AKA glass ceiling) and that once in business they are not taken seriously by their own employees. From my findings, I developed a model of the woman entrepreneur through seven characteristics categories (demographic, economic, support, personal, professional, political, and social). From my study, I developed a solidified respect for categorizing problem-solving concepts in the private, professional, and public “human realms.”

To say that the dissertation undertaking made a lasting impression on me, would be an understatement. It has resulted in the conception of a plethora of additional theories and devices. I now believe very strongly in triangulation thinking, which builds upon my idea that there is indeed a “power of three.”  I also now believe in using the interpretive approach in formulating thought from raw information—and all information is raw. It is up to you and me to make a determination about its applicability.

Applying five steps of interpretational analysis in my study has contributed to my belief that such steps vary according to the practitioner and that it is necessary to hone the steps for greater simplicity and understanding. I also learned about these interpretational steps in attending TQM and TQL seminars. Eventually, I formulated a three-component model that I call, "Tri-Solution," which enlists the identification, interpretation, and implementation stages. Further, in my dissertation work, I began to explore the idea that research should be more than just the polarized opposites of quantitative and qualitative inquiry. I learned about polarization in earning my BA degree, it having a communication emphasis. Stemming from the doctoral odyssey, however, I yearned to invent a trio of inquiries approach. I finally discovered the missing terminology, "quasitative," something used for about the last two decades. I built upon the current concepts and developed what I now term the Q3 Inquiries system approach, which entails using quantitative, qualitative, and quasitative inquiries in all investigations. In my unique approach, it enables the researcher to “measure the past, observe the present, and imagine the potential.” 

Doris Christopher, Pampered Chef advises that to have a passion for what you do is a key element to success in business. Barbara Lukavsky, Merle Norman Cosmetics similarly expresses that it is necessary to be associated with the things liked and enjoyed. Jenny Craig states you are never too old to be successful, inspiring older women to enter entrepreneurship. JoAnne Shaw, The Coffee Beanery advises the entrepreneur not to limit yourself and to look for people who have greater skills than you have or else suffer difficulty growing your business. Mary Kay Marmo, West Beverly Cosmetics has informed us that it has been a man’s world, and to enter it as a woman can be lonely without support. The words of wisdom from these women and many others tell us much about the characteristics of the woman entrepreneur in America. For one thing, they are supportive to one another.

Proudly, my dissertation was concluded and published in 2000 at UMI, where most perfectly good dissertations go to rest unless read or purchased by interested parties. If interested, the title of my dissertation is, “Seven Characteristics of the American Woman Entrepreneur: A Hermeneutic Approach to Developing a Universal Characteristics Model.” [UMI AAT998805]

Take a look. You'll find all of my learning there among the published pages that many folks have read and benefited from. For instance, my dissertation work has even been cited in the journal, "Women in Management Review."

Abstract

Here is my dissertation abstract:

The past decade has emerged as the era of women entrepreneurs. Such women no longer command attention because they are unusual, but because they are important. They are no longer seen as followers, but as leaders; they are no longer viewed as confined to certain businesses, but as innovators across the full range of business and commerce. Nowhere is this phenomenon more profound than in the United States where women are starting businesses faster than in other countries. Such businesses are expected to reach 50% by the year 2002. Currently, almost 8 million women-owned businesses employ one in four U. S. workers and contribute more than $2 trillion annually to the economy. The rapid rise in the number of women entrepreneurs has given importance to studying this group in terms of identifying their universal characteristics. Beyond recognizing the phenomenon, there is much that can be learned about women entrepreneurship by looking closely at recent research. Utilizing the hermeneutic cycle approach, this study sought to meld and interpret the literature and selected studies to develop a universal portrait of the successful American woman business owner. An auditing panel of one male and five female entrepreneurs provided feedback that tested the validity, generalizability, and applicability of the resulting model and its findings, describing the American woman entrepreneur under seven distinct characteristics categories: demographic, economic, support, personal, professional, political, and social. Highlighting specific dimensions in previous research, this study provides an enlightening tool for a multitude of interested individuals and organizations, and it brings to light the potential for future research concerning this proliferating group of women. Major findings suggest that women are leaving corporate positions and taking the risk of entrepreneurship because they are frustrated by their previous work conditions, citing the glass-ceiling phenomenon as a factor. Women overwhelmingly report that they are often not taken seriously by their previous employers and that once they become entrepreneurs even their employees, customers, and/or the philanthropic organizations that they support do not take them seriously. Many studies concerning women entrepreneurs have been male-biased, and others may have misrepresented the reality of the American woman entrepreneur.